Countdown to President Romney's Inauguration

[Dusty]

First Poll in the Countdown has Romney Edging Out Obama as Approval for the President Drops

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...esident-drops/


Republican Mitt Romney holds a slim edge over President Obama in a head-to-head matchup, a Fox News poll released Thursday shows. In addition, the poll finds the president’s job rating has dropped to its lowest point of the year.

In a presidential matchup, Romney tops Obama by 46-44 percent if the election were today.

As with every Romney-Obama matchup in the past six months, the race is so tight that it is within the poll’s margin of sampling error. This, however, is only the second time the Fox News poll shows Romney on top. The first time was November 2011, when he was also up by 2 percentage points.

Click here for full poll results.

The poll was conducted Monday through Wednesday. On Tuesday, Rick Santorum suspended his presidential bid -- giving Romney a clear path to the Republican nomination.

More Republicans (42 percent) than Democrats (32 percent) or independents (34 percent) say they are “extremely” interested in the upcoming presidential election.

Even so, the strength of party support in the matchup is dead even: 85 percent of Democrats back Obama and 85 percent of Republican back Romney.

Among the highly sought after group of independents, the poll found 43 percent back Romney and 37 percent Obama. Nearly one in four independent voters (21 percent) is undecided or won’t vote for either of the major party candidates. Last month, independents split evenly between Obama and Romney at 40 percent each. In February, Romney had a 9-point advantage.

The poll shows the gender gap may not solely be a problem for the Republican candidate. Women are more likely to back Obama (by 49-41 percent), while men are even more likely to give their support to Romney (by 52-38 percent). The 2008 Fox News national exit poll showed women voted for Obama over Republican John McCain by 13 percentage points (56-43 percent). Historically, exit poll results show women have consistently backed the Democrat over the Republican in presidential elections.

Obama’s overall job approval rating stands at 42 percent, down from 47 percent last month. The drop comes mainly from Democrats: 80 percent approve now, down from 86 percent in March. A 51 percent majority of voters disapproves of the job Obama is doing.

News of a stalled economic recovery has likely contributed to the decline in the president’s approval. The disappointing employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday and the recent stock market losses both received significant news coverage in the last week. The stock market suffered its worst losses of the year on Tuesday.

The poll shows these economic issues will continue to be a challenge for Obama.

More voters think Obama’s policies have hurt (37 percent) rather than helped the economy (31 percent). Three in 10 say his policies haven’t made much a difference either way (31 percent).

By more than two-to-one voters say the spending is out of control and the country must take action to reduce the national debt.

Meanwhile, 29 percent of voters say they are “scared” about the country’s financial future and another 49 percent are “concerned, but not scared.” Less than one voter in five feels “confident” (18 percent) and 4 percent are “enthusiastic.” Current views are similar to those from one year ago.

Just under half of Republicans -- 46 percent -- are scared about the future. That’s about three times the number of Democrats who say the same (14 percent). Thirty-one percent of independents are scared.

Most Americans -- 67 percent -- are unhappy with the direction of the country. About a third of voters (32 percent) say they are satisfied with the way things are going today. That’s little improvement from the 30 percent who felt that way a year ago (April 2011) and down a couple notches from two years ago (35 percent). This question is an important indication of voters’ mood. If the national mood is either positive or moving in a positive direction, that’s seen as good news for the incumbent president.

By a 7-point margin, more voters think Romney has the best experience to fix the economy (46-39 percent). Romney’s advantage widens over Obama to 41-28 percent among independents. And that advantage on handling the economy is a big boost for a candidate when over half of voters (53 percent) say the economy will be “extremely” important to their vote for president.

Not surprisingly, more voters prioritize the economy than any other issue tested. Just under half of voters say the federal budget deficit (45 percent) and health care (44 percent) will be “extremely” important in their presidential vote decision.

Among voters who say the economy is "extremely” important, Romney has a 55-37 percent advantage over Obama, and a 62-29 percent edge among those who say the same of the federal deficit. The two candidates are essentially tied among people who say health care is extremely important.

The poll also asks voters about some personal characteristics of the president and the presumed Republican nominee.

By a 9-point margin, voters are more likely to say Obama is “smarter,” than Romney, and by 7 points Obama is seen as “more optimistic.”

Finally, Obama has a 2-point edge when voters are asked which candidate is more likely “to tell you the truth.” Nearly one voter in five says “neither” will be honest (18 percent).

The Fox News poll is based on land-line and cell phone interviews with 910 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from April 9 to April 11. For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points


Snip

[cjwils3]

Since the onus is on Obama to convince the American electorate that he deserves another shot, I think it's safe to say Romney's best bet is hammer him hard on his record. But he better be ready to feel the wrath of Chicago-style politics. If he can't overcome that....well.....

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by cjwils3

Since the onus is on Obama to convince the American electorate that he deserves another shot, I think it's safe to say Romney's best bet is hammer him hard on his record. But he better be ready to feel the wrath of Chicago-style politics. If he can't overcome that....well.....

Agreed, but I think it's an unscrupulous, biased news media that must be overcome in order to make the general voting public aware that Chicago-style bullshit is in play.

Romney'll have to get people to look through a smokescreen as deep and wide as has ever been used to divert people's attention away from the truth.

Obama would really have to have both mitts on the dog's tail to shake him hard enough for 67% percent of the pollees to reverse their collective conclusion that they don't like what's happening with the Country.

In a fair election, I smell a landslide win for Romney based on disgust with the status quo.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by cjwils3

Since the onus is on Obama to convince the American electorate that he deserves another shot, I think it's safe to say Romney's best bet is hammer him hard on his record.

This analysis overlooks the ability of a modern incumbent president to use the bully pulpit to frame the narrative of his first term. For example, in 1916, President Wilson's campaign for re-election centered around the failures of previous Republican policies as well as the fact that he'd kept America out of the Great War. In 1984, President Reagan framed his campaign as a referendum on the Carter presidency. In 2004, Bush the Younger made a specific, but coded, reference to the Carter administration.

So while Governor Romney might prefer to address the current president's record, sticking to that plan will hardly be "safe" if the incumbent uses the bully pulpit to change the narrative and Romney does not adjust his approach.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

In 1984, President Reagan framed his campaign as a referendum on the Carter presidency.

So while Governor Romney might prefer to address the current president's record, sticking to that plan will hardly be "safe" if the incumbent uses the bully pulpit to change the narrative and Romney does not adjust his approach.

This is more like Reagan v. Carter 1980.

[cjwils3]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

This analysis overlooks the ability of a modern incumbent president to use the bully pulpit to frame the narrative of his first term. For example, in 1916, President Wilson's campaign for re-election centered around the failures of previous Republican policies as well as the fact that he'd kept America out of the Great War. In 1984, President Reagan framed his campaign as a referendum on the Carter presidency. In 2004, Bush the Younger made a specific, but coded, reference to the Carter administration.

So while Governor Romney might prefer to address the current president's record, sticking to that plan will hardly be "safe" if the incumbent uses the bully pulpit to change the narrative and Romney does not adjust his approach.

I most certainly agree that Romney cannot simply point the finger at the current administration. Of course he has to win over and energize the conservative base of the GOP while reaching out to independents and swing voters. Yet, for many voters in this election season, it is going to be a denounciation of the policies of the Obama administration, instead of being fond of Romney (which a considerable amount of conservatives seem not to be). I think it's feasible to argue that that is a major reason why Nixon was elected in '68....because the majority of the country had grown to despise the LBJ-Hubert Humphrey government, and not necessarily because they preferred the former Vice President. And one could argue the same for Carter in '76 because of the lingering disgust over Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by cjwils3

I most certainly agree that Romney cannot simply point the finger at the current administration. Of course he has to win over and energize the conservative base of the GOP while reaching out to independents and swing voters. Yet, for many voters in this election season, it is going to be a denounciation of the policies of the Obama administration, instead of being fond of Romney (which a considerable amount of conservatives seem not to be). I think it's feasible to argue that that is a major reason why Nixon was elected in '68....because the majority of the country had grown to despise the LBJ-Hubert Humphrey government, and not necessarily because they preferred the former Vice President. And one could argue the same for Carter in '76 because of the lingering disgust over Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon.

Yep. Anybody but Obama is the prevailing thought, and this election, with regard to popularity, could be even more lopsided than Reagan/Carter.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by cjwils3

Entire post.

What evidence that establishes the "feasibility" of your position that single issues decided the 1968 and 1976 presidential elections?

If you're correct about 1968, then what explains the split of the popular vote between the Democrats and the Republicans in the presidential election or Democratic Party's continued hold on both houses of Congress or the polling data that indicate many Americans were more concerned with specific issues than their personal views of the "government"?

If your argument regarding the 1976 presidential election is sustainable, then what accounts for the wide ranging discussions between the Ford and Carter camps over issues of foreign and domestic policy?* What about Ford's gaffe during the presidential debate of 6 October 1976?

If Watergate was the decisive issue in 1976, then why did Carter himself did not make an issue of Watergate when it mattered most--during the presidential debate of 22 October 1976? That is, why did Governor Carter bother to focus on the issues if he could have just kept saying "Watergate / Nixon" from 1974 onward?)
_________________________________________________
* For example, see The Presidential Campaign, 1976 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978). This collection of documents is available at the Young Library, fifth floor, U.S. government publications. The call number is Y 4.H 81/3:P 92/2/976/v.1-3.

[cjwils3]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

What evidence that establishes the "feasibility" of your position that single issues decided the 1968 and 1976 presidential elections?

If you're correct about 1968, then what explains the split of the popular vote between the Democrats and the Republicans in the presidential election or Democratic Party's continued hold on both houses of Congress or the polling data that indicate many Americans were more concerned with specific issues than their personal views of the "government?

If your argument regarding the 1976 presidential election is sustainable, then what accounts for the wide ranging discussions between the Ford and Carter camps over issues of foreign and domestic policy?* What about Ford's gaffe during the presidential debate of 6 October 1976?

If Watergate was the decisive issue in 1976, then why did Carter himself did not make an issue of Watergate when it mattered most--during the presidential debate of 22 October 1976? That is, why did Governor Carter bother to focus on the issues if he could have just kept saying "Watergate / Nixon" from 1974 onward?)
_________________________________________________
* For example, see The Presidential Campaign, 1976 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978). This collection of documents is available at the Young Library, fifth floor, U.S. government publications. The call number is Y 4.H 81/3:P 92/2/976/v.1-3.

There comes a time in someone's life when it is necessary for them to admit that they have been bested, whether in competition, debate, or general knowledge. For me, that time has come . I'd love to read more on these elections as they are a spellbinding part of American history with implications that are very much around today. Thank you for the reference!

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Agreed, but I think it's an unscrupulous, biased news media that must be overcome in order to make the general voting public aware that Chicago-style bullshit is in play.

Romney'll have to get people to look through a smokescreen as deep and wide as has ever been used to divert people's attention away from the truth.

Obama would really have to have both mitts on the dog's tail to shake him hard enough for 67% percent of the pollees to reverse their collective conclusion that they don't like what's happening with the Country.

In a fair election, I smell a landslide win for Romney based on disgust with the status quo.

Dusty

HERE IS ALL I WANT:
Obama: Gone!,Borders: Closed!,Congress:Obey its own laws,Language: English only,Culture:Constitution, and the Bill of Rights! Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!,NO freebies to:Non-Citizens,Photo Id for all voters!....
We the people are coming!...........

Big Teddy

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by greenberetTFS

Dusty

HERE IS ALL I WANT:
Obama: Gone!,Borders: Closed!,Congress:Obey its own laws,Language: English only,Culture:Constitution, and the Bill of Rights! Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!,NO freebies to:Non-Citizens,Photo Id for all voters!....
We the people are coming!...........

Big Teddy

Big Teddy, you need a "Don't Tread on Me" tat.

[ZonieDiver]

I would have voted for RMN in '68, had I been 21. He had a "secret plan" for getting us out of Viet Nam! \

I voted for McGovern in '72 because he had an enlisted man running on his ticket as VP candidate... Sgt Shriver!

People vote for reasons that are not always apparent, or logical, to someone else. It usually is to them.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

People vote for reasons that are not always apparent, or logical, to someone else. It usually is to them.

Hopefully, no matter the reason, the electorate will vote to get us out of the mess we are in with the current administration.

It would be nice if the folks recognized the complete incompetence of the current administration - but at this point - some of us will take a vote against Obama for less apparent reasons.

IMO, there are so many sound reasons to vote against Obama - a couple of potential Supreme Court nominations are not the least of those reasons !

Roll on November !

[Cake_14N]

Originally Posted by greenberetTFS

HERE IS ALL I WANT:
Obama: Gone!,Borders: Closed!,Congress:Obey its own laws,Language: English only,Culture:Constitution, and the Bill of Rights! Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!,NO freebies to:Non-Citizens,Photo Id for all voters!....
We the people are coming!...........

Big Teddy

My vote: Oboma 0 Big Teddy: 1


BIG TEDDY FOR PRES!!!!!

[Dusty]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,250411.story

Mitt Romney drew a warm reception from the National Rifle Assn. on Friday as he attacked President Obama for “employing every imaginable ruse and ploy” to restrict gun rights, which Romney pledged not to do if elected in November.

Although gun control groups have complained that Obama has done little to support their cause, Romney took a page from the NRA leadership, which has been saying that the president is waiting for a second term to crack down on firearms. He warned that Obama would “remake” the Supreme Court in a second term, threatening constitutional freedoms.

“In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of re-election,” Romney told a crowd estimated at 6,000 in the cavernous Edward Jones Dome. “As he told the Russian president last month when he thought no one else was listening, after a re-election he’ll have a lot more, quote, 'flexibility' to do what he wants. I’m not exactly sure what he meant by that, but looking at his first three years, I have a very good idea.”

Referring specifically to the right to bear arms, Romney said: “If we are going to safeguard our 2nd Amendment, it is time to elect a president who will defend the rights President Obama ignores or minimizes. I will.”

Romney’s speech came at the NRA’s Leadership Forum, which always draws top conservative speakers. Also expected to speak Friday were three of Romney’s former rivals for the GOP nomination, former Sen. Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, as well as a panoply of other Republican stars, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sens. Chuck Grassley and Roy Blunt, and Rep. Darrell Issa.

Most of the other speakers could claim a friendlier history with the NRA than Romney, who supported strict gun control measures as governor of Massachusetts and once said he didn’t “line up” with the gun rights group. But the NRA leadership has thrown its weight behind Romney, whom it sees as preferable to Obama, and Romney received several standing ovations during his speech.

Although Obama has not been responsible for any notable gun control measures, the organization has been sharply critical of some of his appointments, especially that of Eric Holder as attorney general.

Before Romney spoke, the NRA’s legislative director, Chris Cox, showed a video clip that he said depicted a Holder speech from 1995. In it, the future attorney general spoke about the need to "really brainwash people to think about guns in a vastly different way."

"So let's state this in very clear terms,” Cox said. “President Obama needs to fire Eric Holder, and in November, we need to fire the president."
Even before Romney’s speech, the Obama campaign hit back with a statement attacking the presumptive GOP nominee, along with a hefty file of news clippings intended to show that he had a checkered history on gun rights.

“The president's record makes clear the he supports and respects the 2nd amendment, and we'll fight back against any attempts to mislead voters,” said campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt. “Mitt Romney is going to have difficulty explaining why he quadrupled fees on gun owners in Massachusetts then lied about being a lifelong hunter in an act of shameless pandering. That varmint won't hunt.”

Outside the convention hall, a half-dozen or so soggy union-affiliated demonstrators stood in the rain holding signs that said: “Romney: 100% out of touch.”

“We’re basically here to expose Romney as a flip-flopper with the NRA,” said Ed McNees, president of UAW Local 282 in St. Louis. “In ’94, he was for the Brady bill and against assault weapons … and now he’s a newly found supporter of the NRA.”

With McNees was Steve Johnson, a local Teamsters organizer, who said Romney “doesn’t look like anybody who hangs out at any of the places I might hunt.” Leaders of the UAW and the Teamsters have pledged full support to Obama in the 2012 campaign, although both McNees and Johnson insisted that they were there as gun enthusiasts, not Obama supporters.

Snip